Amazon.com Widgets
  • Sometimes you have to

    In some situations like the terrorist attacks of 9/11, a means of force is necessary to obtain the peace where it matters, here in the United States of America. By sitting back and remaining peaceful, it would have only given a more likely chance of another horrific terrorist act similar to 9/11.

  • Sometimes it's necessary

    Unless you're an anarcho-pacifist you truly agree with the "yes" column. The police use force to lock up dangerous murderers, rapists, and thieves so most of us can live our lives in peace. The only way to never use force to obtain peace would be if we had anarchy and everyone was just being peaceful because it was the right thing to do. I personally think at least at the outset most people would. But the small number who wouldn't would ruin it for everybody and unless someone organized some sort of force in order to stop them they would get to run the world.

  • It's The Only Way

    I am not fond of this particular method but seeing how we are now force is our only option. I would like to think that is a better way but there isn't. People are fighting to much, too many unresolved conflicts, constantly doubting each other as a people etc... As we stand now the only way is to force it on the people. In time there will be resentment however in that resentment will come unity among the people. A revolution to create their own peace and Independence. United under a common enemy will come peace. However in due time the process will have to be repeated knowing the peace is only temporary.

  • With today's society, yes.

    I believe force should be used to obtain peace. I believe this because with today's society, more people are corrupt then there used to be. My grandmother once told me that back when she was a child that everyone would leave there doors unlocked without fear of having their belongings stolen and children were allowed to go where ever they wanted to go without fear of being abducted. Now adays though everyone seems to have their door locked and abducted children are on the news daily. We've become a more corrupt era, unlike in the past. Now police, security, etc. Must enforce authority using guns and tazers etc., just to obtain peace. That's what we have to do now to ensure safety and peace. Obviously force must be used quite frequently to obtain peace.

  • History has proven, no

    MLK, Ghandi, Jesus, etc. Allproving force is not necessary

    If you want something to end in peace, you have to engage it peacefully, if we all relied on this moral, and the teachings our nations freedom fighters have given us, then the possibilities for achieving peace are endless.

    The use of force is NOT used to obtain peace. But order and to keep safety at whatever cost. What a police officer achieves when using force is not peace, but security and order. That is what our nation designed their job for originally.

  • History has proven, no

    MLK, Ghandi, Jesus, etc. Allproving force is not necessary

    If you want something to end in peace, you have to engage it peacefully, if we all relied on this moral, and the teachings our nations freedom fighters have given us, then the possibilities for achieving peace are endless.

    The use of force is NOT used to obtain peace. But order and to keep safety at whatever cost. What a police officer achieves when using force is not peace, but security and order. That is what our nation designed their job for originally.

  • History has proven, no

    MLK, Ghandi, Jesus, etc. Allproving force is not necessary

    If you want something to end in peace, you have to engage it peacefully, if we all relied on this moral, and the teachings our nations freedom fighters have given us, then the possibilities for achieving peace are endless.

    The use of force is NOT used to obtain peace. But order and to keep safety at whatever cost. What a police officer achieves when using force is not peace, but security and order. That is what our nation designed their job for originally.

  • History has proven, no

    MLK, Ghandi, Jesus, etc. Allproving force is not necessary

    If you want something to end in peace, you have to engage it peacefully, if we all relied on this moral, and the teachings our nations freedom fighters have given us, then the possibilities for achieving peace are endless.

    The use of force is NOT used to obtain peace. But order and to keep safety at whatever cost. What a police officer achieves when using force is not peace, but security and order. That is what our nation designed their job for originally.

  • Force is Inherently Counterproductive

    Peace is completely subject to perception, and nearly impossible to define. There will never be no utopian version of peace in this world.

    If you define peace as a lack of outright hostility, then force immediately destroys that peace. Force does nothing but create resentment and secondary consequences, that will inevitably cause more conflict.

  • The notion of peace as beneficial is a fundamental mistake

    The usage of force can be beneficial, but can also be used for worrisome purposes. Within protest there is an inherent measure of unrest, physical or otherwise. If force were to be used as a peacemaking method, the endgame would appear to be only complacency and conformity (which I would contend is bad). Unrest and conflict are necessary components to a free and open dialogue - although physical violence is in most cases superfluous, the concepts of disagreement and contention form the basis of an open society.

    To highlight this weakness, I would like to bring up the case of Stalin-era Russia (yes, a bit more extreme than what people are probably expecting, but I believe it is a valid point nonetheless). In Russia, dissidents were jailed and placed into gulags (forced-labor camps) in the interest of maintaining peace and unity (see Trotsky).

    A second example would be in the Middle East during the Arab Spring. Without delving into the details about which side is morally correct in the affair, I would like to point out that the notion that military force is used against protesters is abhorrent to the idea of free dialogue - even if certain protesters were in violation of laws, the overall chilling effect placed upon dissent is far too great.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Disquisition says2013-08-26T02:10:25.197
Why ask this, you certainly know it depends on the situation.